Draft monograph: Larazotide acetate — submissions
The 8 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.
§2Submissions and responses
8 submissions were received. Each is published in full below with its declared interest, the secretariat response and the disposition. The Institute publishes submissions it did not accept in the same form as those it did.
The route of administration studied is not the route in which the compound is supplied
This submission addresses the draft on Larazotide acetate from the standpoint of a reader who meets the compound in supply material before meeting it in a journal.
The clinical section describes findings obtained by one route and the supply section describes presentations intended for another. A reader moving between the two sections will carry the effect estimate across the change without noticing that it has been carried, because nothing on the page marks the transition.
The respondent proposes that where the studied route and the supplied presentation differ, the difference be stated in the assessed-outcome table itself rather than in the supply section, on the ground that a reader consults the outcome table and does not always reach §8.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The route by which an estimate was generated is a condition of the estimate and belongs beside it.
The assessed-outcome table now carries the studied route in every row, and a standing note appears wherever the supplied presentation differs from it.
The monograph does not tell a reader that a stated mass may be substantially counter-ion and water
The respondent has read the draft covering Larazotide acetate and makes one submission.
The draft quotes vial contents in milligrams without stating whether the figure refers to peptide content or to total solids. For an acetate or trifluoroacetate salt of a peptide, the difference between the two can exceed a fifth of the stated mass.
The respondent, an analytical chemist, states that this is the single most consequential misreading in the field and that a monograph that does not address it directly is leaving the reader to discover it.
Submission 001 raises an adjacent matter. The respondent regards the two as separable and addresses only this one.
The secretariat accepts this submission. Moderate certainty evidence from published analytical surveys suggests that content and total solids are routinely conflated in supply documentation, and the draft did not warn the reader.
The monograph now states, at the point where vial contents are first mentioned, that a mass figure is uninterpretable unless it states whether it is peptide content or total solids, and cross-references the content standard in the analytical series.
A superseded version should remain reachable from the version that replaced it
The respondent notes that the draft on Larazotide acetate carries no controlled human trial, and submits with that in view.
The respondent states that the draft supersedes an earlier document and that a reader who cited the earlier version has no way to reach it from the new one, which makes it impossible to see what changed.
The respondent asks that every version carry a link both to what it supersedes and to what supersedes it.
The secretariat notes this submission. The corrections and versioning policy already requires bidirectional version links and every superseded document is retained at its own address.
No amendment arises. The requirement is stated in the corrections and versioning policy and the amendment log of this document links to the version it replaced. The respondent is correct that the link was absent from the draft page furnished for consultation, which was a defect of the consultation copy and not of the policy.
A purity figure from a certificate is quoted as though it were a content figure
The respondent’s comment on the draft for Larazotide acetate arises from work with compounds of this class in a laboratory rather than a clinical setting.
The draft quotes a purity percentage from supply documentation in a sentence about how much compound a vial contains. Chromatographic purity is a relative area within what was detected; it is not a mass fraction and it does not bound vial content.
The respondent, an analytical chemist, proposes that purity and content never appear in the same sentence without an explicit statement that they answer different questions.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The conflation is the error the Institute most often corrects in supply documentation, and it appeared in an Institute draft.
Purity and content are now reported in separate rows with separate definitions, and the monograph states that a purity figure sets no bound on content and that a content figure requires a determination against a standard of assigned content.
The certainty rating for the principal assessed outcome cannot be traced to the contributing trials
The respondent submits on the draft monograph for Larazotide acetate. Repair peptides are where the distance between the preclinical literature and the clinical literature is widest, and a monograph earns its place by measuring that distance.
The draft states a certainty rating for the principal assessed outcome and lists the contributing trials, but does not state which domain drove the downgrade. A reader who disagrees with the rating cannot tell whether the disagreement concerns risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness or inconsistency.
The respondent proposes that each rating carry its downgrade reasons explicitly, in the same row as the rating, so that a reader can accept the evidence assessment while disputing a single domain judgement.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A rating without its reasoning is an assertion, and the draft asserted rather than showed.
Each assessed outcome now carries its downgrade domains in the summary-of-findings row, with a short statement of the judgement made in each, so that the rating can be checked domain by domain against the contributing trials.
The absence of paediatric evidence is not stated where a reader would look for it
The respondent read the draft on Larazotide acetate and has confined this submission to one matter.
The population section describes the adult trial populations. Nothing states whether the compound has been studied in anyone under eighteen. For several compounds in this series it has not, and for one or two it has; the document does not let the reader tell which case applies.
The respondent proposes a standing row in the population table recording paediatric evidence as present, absent, or present in a named subpopulation only.
The secretariat accepts this submission. An unstated absence is indistinguishable from an unread section.
The population table now carries a paediatric row in every monograph, and where evidence exists the trials are named.
The interaction section lists mechanisms rather than interactions
The draft on Larazotide acetate was read against the sources cited in it, and this submission arises from that comparison.
The section describes pathways by which an interaction could occur. It does not say which interactions have been observed, in what setting, or with what consequence. A reader dispensing alongside other therapy cannot act on a mechanism.
The respondent proposes that observed interactions be separated from theoretical ones, and that the theoretical ones be labelled as such.
The respondent notes submission 001 above and does not repeat the ground it covers.
The secretariat accepts the separation and declines to expand the section beyond the evidence.
The interaction section is now divided into interactions reported in clinical use and interactions predicted from mechanism, with the second labelled as prediction. Where neither exists the section says so in one line rather than being padded.
Every contributing trial shares one sponsor and the monograph does not say so
Having read the draft monograph on Larazotide acetate, the respondent puts one point to the committee.
The respondent, who has published a systematic review of this literature, states that all of the contributing trials for the principal outcome were conducted by a single sponsor, and that this is a property of the evidence base rather than a criticism of any individual trial.
The respondent proposes that sponsor concentration be recorded as a characteristic of the evidence base in the certainty assessment rather than as a note in the discussion.
The secretariat accepts this submission. Sponsor concentration bears on what an independent replication would add, and the draft recorded it where a reader was least likely to see it.
Sponsor concentration is now stated with the certainty rating, and the monograph records how many independent sponsors contributed evidence to each assessed outcome.
References cited on this page
References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO/IEC Standard 2017;3rd edition. identifier not held by the Institute
Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.